You can't speak for me, nor can I speak for you. So who actually is "we"?

And just to repeat:
...on the basis of unwarranted self-adulation...
— Banno

...on the mistaken assumption that they are above the law...
— Banno — Banno

Prime Minister Scott Morrison said on Monday that Djokovic was subjected to treatment that was "the same as everyone else".

It wasn't. It was instead about privilege. Djokovic case exposes unfair treatment of refugees in Australia — Banno

But why blame Djokovic for this?

Why blame Djokovic for the privileged treatment he received?

Who is "we"?

Winners don't read those books or watch those films. For them, those books and films actually are fails.

We are. — Banno

Who is "we"?

Believing Covid doesn't exist does not prevent you from getting sick. — Banno

Ha! The placebo effect says it can.

I think there is a difference between the sense of self and the self itself. Perhaps a person can lose the sense of the self but the sense continues to exist. — hopeful

One's self-concept (also called self-construction, self-identity, self-perspective or self-structure) is a collection of beliefs about oneself.[1][2] Generally, self-concept embodies the answer to the question "Who am I?"[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-concept

Self-as-context, one of the core principles in acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), is the concept that people are not the content of their thoughts or feelings, but rather the consciousness experiencing said thoughts and feelings.[1][2] Self-as-context is distinguished from self-as-content, defined in ACT as the social scripts people maintain about who they are and how they operate in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-as-context

Of the Sancta Trinitas, I've seen (independent) threads and debates on the Son (Jesus) and the Father (God) but never on the Holy Ghost/Spirit. Why? — Agent Smith

Actually, the Holy Ghost is the most immediately pertinent for the people, and thus should be discussed the most, for it is the Holy Ghost that grants people faith in God (or withholds it).

For people, matters of God begin and end with the Holy Ghost.

It's a shame that so often, he gets so little credit.

What is it we are prepared to countenance as art and therefore assess as an aesthetic work or statement and how do we make an assessment of its relative merits? — Tom Storm

That which we have learned to do so, and to the extent or expanse which our learning permits.

I dislike most contemporary art I have seen. Mainly because I find it dull. — Tom Storm

That's because you're not getting involved in it, you don't bother to empathize with it, and most of all, you see no problem with such non-involvement. Because you're still approaching art as a _consumer_ -- a term you used yourself.

If you were to find the work 'Equivalent V111' by Carl Andre (basically 120 house bricks arranged in a pattern) dumped on a building site it would just be a pile of bricks. If you found a Rodin sculpture dumped in the same location it would still be art despite being context free. Does this add anything to our understanding of definitions? — Tom Storm

The Rodin is not context free, though, the viewer provides the context via his previous education/enculturation.

As does everything else. But can't we still make a case for who is the greatest ancient Greek writer and why, even though their civilisation and tradition is extinct?

Yes, we can, because for those old texts, we know the rules for what counts as good and what doesn't.

I can't relate to the fascination some people have with Bergman. I actually think his films are nothing special. But of course, I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who has first seen a rich film tradition, some of it inspired by Bergman, and only then ventured into seeing his films. From that perspective, Bergman indeed doesn't seem all that special.

The order in which one becomes acculturated does make a difference to the way one experiences media products.

Let's get one thing straight: Classical music (and classical Western art) aren't goddam capitalist, it isn't something for only the rich for starters, so don't be against it!

Why wouldn't we like the music of our own heritage? — ssu

We shouldn't, insofar as we don't belong to the socio-economic class in whose domain classical Western art is nowadays, ie. the elite.


You cannot just go to a classical concert if you don't have the appropriate socio-economic status for it. It can even happen that people will hiss behind your back, "What is she doing here?!" At least in Europe, people have a very sharp sense of socio-economic class and can recognize a person's class just by looking at them.

Valery Gergiev and the Mariinsky Orchestra once gave a performance here. It was a considerable media event with a lot of VIP's in the audience. The main piece of the evening was Tchaikovsky's Sixth Symphony. At the end, the audience didn't applaud. Gergiev looked at the audience with worry. Then, finally, someone started, a standing ovation ensued.

I put on my best clothes, but it was clear that I was gravely underdressed for the event. The ladies behind me commented on this or that woman, the importance of wearing fancy dresses and high heels (despite the damage they do to the knees and backbone, they said).

I know the Sixth by heart. I bought my ticket long in advance, with an empirically tested best seat in the hall. I felt entirely out of place, and I felt sorry for going.

(Although I didn't applaud for my own reason -- I was going through a funk at the time, where I couldn't quite figure out how there can be life after being in a state of the Sixth. Classical concerts can be good in a sense, because the formality of the affair can help one gain distance from the emotional-cognitive state of or induced by the music, so as to not become sentimental/pathetic.)

I'm asking you. You're the one making claims about merit that seem to hint at some kind objectivity. — Tom Storm

Or are you suggesting with your term 'collective process' that there is an intersubjective agreement about what art can be considered good? If so, then we might still need to work out how we arrive at good or bad if we are going to communicate about art. — Tom Storm

Then who cares what you or I think? And we can stop making judgements about what is art, except to ourselves. — Tom Storm

I think art is in the discourse about certain media products.

Art has to do with being social in a very specific way (of the "you know it when you see it" variety).
It's not simply about one's subjective experience or subjective opinion about a media product. It's about one's subjective experience or subjective opinion about a media product, while this subjective experience or subjective opinion is embedded in a particular social, cultural, economic context, and it is done so for real, with real stakes, in the sense that one having said subjective experience or subjective opinion functions in these contexts as a person; ie. as someone who has certain social, cultural, and economic needs, interests, concerns, roles, obligations, functions, prospective advantages and disadvantages.

There is nothing mysterious about how this process works: we are social animals and we do look for clues among our people, our milieu, about what is considered good and not good.
— Bitter Crank

Sure, you're not wrong, but in the context of a philosophy forum and arguments about a subject, we can do better, no? Our job here is to transcend the gravitational pull of enculturation and group mores. — Tom Storm

My assumption is that the gravitational pull of enculturation and group mores is actually all there is to art.
On their own, pictures are just shapes and colors; music is just sound frequencies of particular dynamics and duration; and so on.

We need to venture firmly into the mystical to be able to make claims such as "red is the color of anger, and when the painter painted the woman's dress in red, he wanted to thereby express the frustration that women feel at being treated as sex objects".

For me a key question isn't merely whether the art is any good but what the consumers of that art are getting out it. Maybe mediocre art provides transcendence for mediocre people? — Tom Storm

Lady Gaga said that her aim has been to become a star. She consciously chose the genre of pop music to achieve this aim.
She is fluent in several genres, but she specifically chose pop music to perfect this form, for the purpose of her aim.

I think much pop music is subversive. Sometimes, musicians will openly admit to this, other times hint to it. One also needs to master the art of subversion to "enjoy" this music as a listener.

Except Thomas Kinkaid: His gooey, treacly, cloying sentimental village scenes are a criminal aggravation of the diabetes epidemic. — Bitter Crank

See, his pictures don't bother me at all. I view them the same way I view any art. I assume subversion. (After all, Kinkade was an alcoholic and died as a consequence of it.)

Quality and effort shows whether it's Mozart's Requiem or the latest chart topper, and so do a lack of quality. — Bitter Crank

What is now called "classical music" (or in German: ernste Musik, 'serious music') used to be popular music back at the time when it was first composed and played. Composers and solo artists back then had the same type of status as music celebrities do nowadays. Note that the relatively few pieces that are now considered the canon of classical music (perhaps a thousand pieces) are actually the the-best-of a few hundred years.

So we cannot rightfully compare a piece from the classical canon and just any piece that is now played a lot on the radio or YT. The latter hasn't yet stood the test of time, while the former has.

I can't understand Hemingway's fondness for bullfighting. — Ciceronianus

That's because your opinion of him is too humanistic.
It's rather strange that as a lawyer, you don't see life as a struggle for survival/the upper hand.

It may not be PC to say — Pinprick

And this is pretty much the problem with this topic. It's about something that people generally actually like and admire (and prove so by paying to watch or do it), but there is a taboo on talking about it.

Sue him! Sue the motherfucker and motherfuckin deport him! What are you waiting for?!!

So, what are you going to do about this deficiency? — Bitter Crank

Cry my eyes out!

The point is apart from subjective taste, what do we have? — Tom Storm

Culture, tradition, elites.

The simplest - Art is anything that is presented by someone for aesthetic judgement. It's similar to saying that it's art if I say it is, but not exactly. It's a rule that's easy to apply. — T Clark

"Does my butt look big in these pants?"

And that's art?!

I recently saw a 2007 interview with Dr Hubert Dreyfus, the great Heidegger scholar. He considers H to be possibly the greatest philosopher 'of all time'. Enlightened? Well if Kant is then... Yet there is the Nazi Party membership issue and Heidegger's belief in Hitler. What do we do when one of the smartest philosophers of all time (debatable, sure) buys into possibly the most evil 20th century movement? Dreyfus says he can't find the words to explain it. — Tom Storm

How do you, or Dreyfus, explain why Nazism is so evil?

If you want to set yourselves up as judges over Heidegger's enlightenment status, then surely you should have the words to explain Heidegger's involvement with Nazism.

Of course, secular culture does not rely on authority.
— praxis

'nihil ultra ego' — Wayfarer

Because when someone calls you "braindead" and such, the most rational thing to do is to bow to that person and become their devotee. Riiight.

Religious/spiritual "authorities" have brought the disrespect that they so eagerly complain about upon themselves. People can endure being treated like shit for some time, but not indefinitely. Sure, blame the people, what else. Blame them, blame their selfishness, their stiff-neckedness, whatever suits your purpose, whatever detracts from your acknowledging that if you truly knew better (as you want others to acknowledge), you should act differently than you did.

Here is a snip-it. — Ennui Elucidator

Strange. I copy-pasted “Ontology of truth: How many answers are ‘correct’ in the sight of God?” and googled it, and nothing.

I'm happy to discuss the topic if you like, but I can't help but feel that you are more interested in maintaining a view in support of your religious politics rather than learning something about religion. Just let me know which direction you want to go in.

I'm interested in how to deal with the situation at the ground level, ie. day-to-day life, about peacefully and hopefully, meaningfully coexisting with religious/spiritual people. Of course religious academics will provide all kinds of theories. But those theories, just like the notions of religious freedom, religious tolerance, or religious pluralism are useless when, for example, one has to deal with a coworker (or worse, a boss) who aggressively proselytizes during workhours or in the times immediately preceeding work and after work. Or when your kid, who goes to a secular public school, is targeted for religious bullying by his religious classmates.

"Is this person a genuine teacher or is he a charlatan?" is the wrong question. The right question is more along the lines of, "Whom am I looking for? A genuine teacher, or do I just want someone who will provide me with another fancy layer of denial and delusion?"
— baker

I don't think this helps much. I think a lot of people start with this latter question and still end up with a charlatan - but I get your point. — Tom Storm

I'm not sure we're on the same page here.

Can you say why "Is this person a genuine teacher or is he a charlatan?" is the wrong question?


(Aww, look at those claws!)

I agree with you on that, but is it, for lack of a better word, right? — john27

For many practical intents and purposes, it's safe. Usually, this is as good as life gets anyway.

Or maybe, if this is true, what reasons would we have to strive for excellence? Is there a defense for excellence?

Well, there is the striving for being excellent in one's mediocrity. It's an art to be average, to fit in, to not stick out, to be utterly non-different in one's differentness.

The supreme good is like water,
which nourishes all things without trying to.
It is content with the low places that people disdain.
Thus it is like the Tao.

In dwelling, live close to the ground.
In thinking, keep to the simple.
In conflict, be fair and generous.
In governing, don't try to control.
In work, do what you enjoy.
In family life, be completely present.

When you are content to be simply yourself
and don't compare or compete,
everybody will respect you. — T Clark

The irony is, of course, that anything can be described with these words.

Humility is a big deal in Taoism. Many verses talk about the danger of exalting yourself. Trying to achieve acclaim. One metaphor that gets used a lot is that Tao is like water. It always seeks out low places, but it has great power. In low places, things gain no advantage or acclaim. They are ignored. — T Clark

Nonsense. Taoist literature should be read the same way as Machiavelli's The Prince.

The whole point of religion is about being right, for all times!!
— baker

There is no “point” to religion. — Ennui Elucidator

Millennia of religion down the drain ...

Religions are not static and change over time. Some religions are more willing to acknowledge that change than others. At any moment in time, there are diversity of opinions among adherents. Some of those opinions are deemed “orthodox” and others “heterodox”, but that doesn’t mean that all disagreements require that there be only one answer.

Of course religions change over time (and place). But that never stopped their adherents from believing that their religion is the right one.

Between Islam an Hinduism, you’ve got around 3 billion people out of a world population of 8 billion. Go tell them what their “religion” is supposed to be.

What on earth are you talking about??! If I were to go and talk to pretty much any religious/spiritual person, as soon as they would find out I am not a member of their religion, they would tell me, in less or more direct terms, that they are right and I am wrong, and that their religion is the one and only right one.

P.S. The random article I linked has a section entitled “Ontology of truth: How many answers are ‘correct’ in the sight of God?” that you may find of interest.

I can't find it.

Engage as the context determines. If I can't see a way in which someone's belief could harm my community, then I've no business interfering. If I can, I've reasonable ground to interfere. — Isaac

Have you ever tried this, and have been successful with your intervention?

Because from what I've seen, people act like this --

What's not reasonable is suggesting that I ought to base my interference on someone else's judgement of whether the belief/text/law might harm my community. That would be absurd. We don't routinely act on the basis of other people's beliefs.

In other words, what I have seen is that people's concerns and interventions routinely get dismissed on account of "Well, this is just what you believe, your paranoid fear, not how things really are, so we don't have to do anything about it."

And, of course, the very popular, "Look at the beam in thine own eye, instead of criticizing me!"

His actual offence seems to be that now some people feel pressured by him or because of him to say some really undemocratic or otherwise unsavory things. Which they believe, of course, but which are tabooed and which they feel they should never have to say.

Laughable.

Russia doesn't figure in Australian politics. — Banno

*sigh*
Do try to keep up with Scotty.

Australia is refuelling the Cold War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AUKUS

In Australian English, tall poppies are usually individuals who, on the basis of unwarranted self-adulation, itself a consequence of success, amassed fortune or fame, have become targets for criticism; or, less frequently, individuals who, overcome by success, amassed fortune or fame, and on the mistaken assumption that they are above the law, have engaged in unlawful behaviour, only to find that, eventually, the law catches up with them as well.

A little bit of nuance is appropriate. Our friend fits the bill nicely.

If he had entered Australia as a blind passenger or by force, you'd have a point. But now you're blaming him for what was entirely the fault of the Australian government.

Poppies are valued for their colour, not their height.

Then why cut the tallest ones ...

Hence: Should we consider, the average populous, as instances of perfection? They are the epitome of acting out in moderation, lacking in extremity in all ways, whatsoever. — john27

It's already happening. Mediocrity as the highest goal, the highest perfection.

The tallest poppy gets its head cut, therefore, it's the mediocre poppy that is the best one.

Djokovic cried when had to take a minor elbow surgery, that's how much he dislikes modern medicine... — Manuel

Oh, come on. At his level of professional athletic performance, every little detail matters. Anything that can endanger it in any way must be shunned.
Professional athletes aren't just ordinary people, doing just ordinary things.


Other than that, there is suspicion that in this whole Djokovic visa scandal, Australia is actually trying to pick a fight with Russia, given that Serbia is on good terms with Russia.


Aww, and this:

The tall poppy syndrome is a cultural phenomenon in which people hold back, criticise, or sabotage those who have or are believed to have achieved notable success in one or more aspects of life, particularly intellectual or cultural wealth — "cutting down the tall poppy".[1] It describes a draw towards mediocrity and conformity.

Commonly in Australia and New Zealand, "cutting down the tall poppy" is used to describe those who deliberately put down another for their success and achievements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome

( 1 ) Christians act as if X is good.
( 2 ) X is bad.
( 3 ) If someone acts as if X is good when X is bad then their judgement should be questioned.
( 4 ) Christians' judgement should be questioned.

Which is a perfectly valid argument. I don't think it's currently sound though, as premise ( 1 ) seems insufficiently justified. The reason being that despite the sophistication of the belief account you've provided, there currently isn't an articulated link between why worshipping an entity which approves of X means acting as if X is good. — fdrake

(I'm reminded of a scene from Wuthering Heights where a young woman, infatuated with Heathcliff, giggles as he tortures her dog. Heathcliff later criticizes her severely for that.)

It's your second premise that isn't sufficiently justified. In a Christian setting (or, for the quibblers, in some Christian settings), eternal damnation is _not_ a bad thing. It just isn't. It's righteousness.

Sure, but the point is that there is a whole culture of people refusing to play by the rules. We cannot just ignore them, nor their success.
— baker

OK, what is it you suggest? — Isaac

I don't know what the solution would be. But for starters, better boundaries, holding back, less communication, fewer attempts at communication, more of minding one's own business. And I mean all this is a good sense, in the sense of protecting one's time and resources.

Then you don't have much of a case for fairness.
— baker

I don't see how. Are you saying that I can only make a case the we ought have something if it's actually indispensable. That seems like an unreasonably high threshold.

Your stance strikes me as unduly idealistic, bound to fail in the real world.
You expect Christians to openly engage in discussion of their beliefs, including justifying them to outsiders. I point out that Christians are loathe to do that. They simply won't engage in discussion the way you think would be fair. So it's on us to do something differently, lest we end up at a disadvantage (which usually comes in the form of wasted time and resources).

I think it's reasonable for people to venture an opinion on the contents of the bible as any other book, without needing to become part of some peculiar game of make-believe.

I'll argue that it is reasonable _not_ to venture an opinion on the contents of the bible as any other book, unless one is part of the epistemic and normative community associated with that book, or unless one otherwise becomes part of some peculiar game of make-believe.

My interest here is as to the extent to which Christians (and Muslims) ought be allowed at the table when ethical issues are discussed. — Banno

But realistically, how much say do we have in such situations?

When you're actually on a board or a committe that discusses ethical issues, I imagine that at that level, there are going to be so many legal and procedural restrictions and guidelines in place that your objection to the effect of "But this person worships an evil god!" is misplaced. Perhaps if you're powerful enough, you can vote to remove the person in question from the board or committee, but beyond that, it's not clear how much you can actually do or how much your opinion of their religious status matters.

As for discussing ethical issues in a less formal setting: In such settings (such as between friends and family), the nature of the relationship between those involved is likely to be primary. For example, if you and your religious brother need to decide whether to place your elderly parents into a facility for the elderly, will whether your brother is religious or not really matter in your decision, or will it be the case that what will matter more that he is your brother?

Sure, but my religion does agree with me. And has for a few thousand years. — Ennui Elucidator

What "religion" would that be??

The claim of being “right” for all of time lacks the sort of humility required from fallible people in an ever changing world.

The whole point of religion is about being right, for all times!!

This is just incorrect and largely why you're not afforded a seat at the table when offering interpretations of biblical sources. There's nothing meaningfully distinct between how legal documents are interpreted as opposed to religious except for the fact that you have respect for the Anglo tradition of legal interpretation, but not for the systems in place for biblical interpretation. — Hanover

I want you to acknowledge the following point:

I agree with your take, and I believe in the supremacy of the emic. I think other people's religion is other people's religion and none of my business. However, usually, they don't think this way. No. They expect me to believe that their religion is the one and only right one and that I need to convert to it, or at least bow to it. They are the ones who don't respect the boundary between church and state, they are the ones who don't respect the boundary between their ingroup and the outgroup.

This has been very obvious in this time around Christmas, when high Christian clerics gave their Christmas speeches on national television in what is a nominally secular country. In those speeches, they did not address only the members of their ingroup, but everyone. They spoke as if Jesus' birth was a source of hope for everyone, and so on. There was also no warning from the national television that the speeches of these clerics were addressed only to their respective ingroups.

Why not? Are we, as outsiders to religion, and as viewers of national television, somehow supposed to understand that these clerics are addressing only their respective ingroups and that we should tune out for the time their speech is being televised?

And why do those clerics talk as if what they say applies for everyone, and not just their respective ingroups?

I don't watch Christian channels because I don't feel addressed by what they're saying there. But I expect that national, secular television should uphold the proper boundaries as far as religion goes; or else, what the clerics say there should be taken at face value (and thus subject to legitimate criticism).

Who is writing your posts? [...]
— baker

You need to differentiate the writer and what's written (the topic at hand). — jorndoe

No, it's crucial to the topic at hand.

E.g. Banno's take on it:

You have to then insist on the authority of your own conventions over those of the folk who would stone adulterers. — Banno

If arguments or words alone could settle things on their own somehow, people would be redundant.

If you don't see your brain as it truly is how can you say that you see other brains as they truly are? How is it that you have true sight of other people's brains but not of your own when you only have access to the image and not the thing itself? — Harry Hindu

The popular idea seems to be just that: that we can correctly see others "as they truly are".
It's why a formulation in the form of "You are x" isn't merely shorthand for "I think you are x".

If you are able to know about things by only accessing an image of those things, does it really matter that you don't have direct access to those things?

Yes, it matters. Are you not scared by the proposition that you're trapped in indirectness?

There is no one true faith or one interpretation. — Ennui Elucidator

And pretty much every religion/spirituality categorically disagrees with your claim.

The difference is one of pragmatism. I can quite legitimately, intervene in people's interpretation of religious texts. — Isaac

In the name of pragmatism, why would you intervene like that?

I might say to the Pope

No, you couldn't. You can't just get an audience with the Pope.

Yes, but that's because a Ugandan, like it or not, is not under the jurisdiction of the US constitution and you, like it or not, are.

This is not the case with the Bible, which is just a book and people voluntarily follow some, all, or none of it's edicts as they see fit.

The difference is one of pragmatism. I can quite legitimately, intervene in people's interpretation of religious texts. I might say to the Pope "look at this line from the bible, isn't this all nonsense", and he could say "yes, you're right, sod this for a game of soldiers". In contrast, I could provide the best argument in the world to a judge about some line in a legal document and he'd still have to say "well, that's the way the legal community have interpreted it so there's little I can do".

Each individual member of the legal community is constrained to some extent by the others and subject to their interpretation regardless.

Each individual member of a religion could make up a new rule, walk away entirely, or not as they see fit and they'd be in no way bound by traditional interpretations. They could invent a new church, a new cult, an entirely new religion, or abandon the project entirely.

You're treating biblical law as if it applied in the same way as actual law. It doesn't. Biblical law is entirely optional. Take all of it, some of it, none of it, as you see fit. Make it up as you go along, stick to 2000yr old edicts, listen to your pastors, ignore them entirely, whatever you like. As such, there's no reason at all why a complete outsider might not take part in the discussion on the basis of what each line/section/story means to them, it's possible that their unique take might change the understanding of any individual, since there's no practical constraint on what the 'right' interpretation is. — Isaac

The question of what a document means is interpreted by the method agreed upon by those who use the document as to what it means. — Hanover

This is just incorrect and largely why you're not afforded a seat at the table when offering interpretations of biblical sources. There's nothing meaningfully distinct between how legal documents are interpreted as opposed to religious except for the fact that you have respect for the Anglo tradition of legal interpretation, but not for the systems in place for biblical interpretation. — Hanover

Both of your points apply.

On the one hand, there are the Protestants and the Born-Again Christians, for example, who, basically espouse a DIY view of what should count for God's word and God's law. Or, if we look at the multitudes and versatility of religions, there ensues a relativism on account that religions espouse all kinds of views.

On the other hand, there are the Jews, and the specific schools within Judaism, for example, with their very definitive understanding of what should count for God's word and God's law.

We, as outsiders, are exposed to both views and practices by the religious people.
So the Protestants, for example, want us to consider ourselves subject to God's law and that everything said the Bible applies to us. Also, just yesterday, the head of the Orthodox church in his Orthodox Christmas speech on national television, spoke in a manner that his message applied to everyone, not just the members of the Eastern orthodox Church.
While on the other hand, there are those religious people who maintain that outsiders have no business even reading scriptures.

So what are we, as outsiders, supposed to do?